“What we anticipate seldom occurs: but what we least expect generally happens.” Benjamin Disraeli
Introduction
This quote by British politician, novelist, essayist and twice, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Benjamin Disraeli, came to mind this week, as I reflected on the outcome of the UK elections on July 4, 2024.
The Expected
It cannot be said Labour’s win over the Conservatives (Tories) was not anticipated. Very early after the last election, pollsters had been reporting a murmur of anti-Tory sentiment in the heartbeat of the electorate, which grew stronger with every expected, and unexpected by-election win by the Labour Party. With the Tories lurching from crisis to crisis —spawned by disastrous handling of the social and economic fallout from Brexit and Covid—and from one Prime Minister to another (David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak), it gradually became clear that the Tories were headed for defeat at the Elections.
The Unexpected
What was not expected was that Labour would have romped home so convincingly, capturing 412 of 650 constituencies in play, across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to bring an end to 14 years of Tory rule. Indeed, at the last General Election held only 4 years earlier, the Tories inflicted their worst defeat on the Labour Party, in more than 8 decades.
With such political ignominy in the frame of analysis, few would have thought the Labour Party under Sir Keir Starmer would have survived as a Party, far less for it to have reversed its political fortunes in such a stunning fashion. The Labour Party registered a net gain of 214 seats, compared to a net loss of 251 seats for the Tories, including several held by high-profile Cabinet Ministers. In this respect, Disraeli was right in noting that what is least expected, generally happens.
Lessons from History
I first came across the opening quote, and several others attributed to Disraeli, while studying in the UK, back in the mid-1980s. The fact that he was a Tory diminished my interest in researching his politics. Then, I was rabidly anti-Tory, mainly because of my disdain for the “handbag politics” of Margaret Thatcher. However, having just re-read Disraeli’s biography, I am struck by how much, and how little, has changed in the political culture of the UK since the 18th Century and the lessons that can be gleaned from this situation.
Protectionism and Class Alliances
Then, as now, protectionism was a dominant issue, with passionate debate between the main political parties, —Tories, Radicals and Whigs— over the fate of the Corn Law, which imposed tariffs on imported wheat to protect farmers from foreign competition, but which increased the price of bread, thus heaping misery on the working class. Usually, the middle and working class are enjoined in battle against the aristocracy. However, at that time, the working class was aligned with the aristocracy, against the middle class, which consisted of merchants and industrialists.
The tussle over the Corn law, led to the breakup of the Tory Party, with Disraeli eventually leading a minority faction —which would later become the new Tory Party—backing the continuation of protection, while most Tories decided to align with the Radicals and the Whigs to keep the laws in place. The Tories did not return to Government for another 22 years. Here, we may see parallels with Labour’s long sojourn in the wilderness under Jeremy Corbyn and to a lesser extent, Starmer.
Parallels in the USA
Interestingly, around that same time, a Whig Party had formed in the US, with a similar policy posture as its UK counterpart, including fierce support for an American System (read “America First”) that included tariffs on imported goods. As had happened in the UK, the Whig Party in the US imploded in the mid- 1850s, with the Republican Party (Conservatives) emerging from the ashes. Abraham Lincoln was among 4 former US Presidents who proudly wore Whig ideals, before switching to the Republican Party.
Disraeli vs Gladstone
A defining feature of Disraeli’s political career was his long-running feud with Lord William Gladstone, whose speech during a debate in Parliament in 1852, led to the defeat of a budget presented by Disraeli, as Chancellor of the Exchequer and the collapse of the Derby Government. Twice, Gladstone and Disraeli traded places as Chancellor of the Exchequer in different governments.
It is alleged that a woman who had dated Disraeli and his Gladstone on different nights, and was asked her opinion of the two men, said after dining with Gladstone, she thought he was the cleverest man in England; but that Disraeli made her feel she was the cleverest woman in England.
In the true custom of wit-laden politics that is among the hallmarks of British politics, the two men traded verbal barbs right through to Disraeli’s death. Disraeli once described Gladstone as “… an extraordinary mixture of envy, vindictiveness, hypocrisy and superstition.” On another occasion, he said that Gladstone did not have “a single redeeming defect.” For his part, Gladstone gave as good as he got from Disraeli. At his death, he wrote “As he (Disraeli) lived, so he died — all display, without reality or genuineness.” Yet during Disraeli’s long illness, Gladstone called several times to inquire about his progress, and in his memorial speech on Disraeli in the House of Commons, he moved a motion to erect a memorial in Westminster Abbey in Disraeli’s honour.
Feuding aside, both Gladstone and Disraeli made significant contributions to the development of the UK, especially improvements in the living and working circumstances of the working class.
Statesmanship
We witnessed similar acts of statesmanship by the incoming and outgoing Prime Ministers after last week’s election. Sunak immediately accepted defeat and congratulated Starmer. He also accepted full responsibility for his Party’s dismal performance at the polls and promised to step down as soon as a successor is elected. Starmer was gracious in victory and acknowledged Sunak’s historic feat as the first British-Asian PM of the UK. He also recognized the dedication and hard work he brought to his leadership.
I truly admire this feature of the political culture of the UK. I have always maintained that competing politicians need not like each other. They may even say uncomplimentary things about each other. However, it is noteworthy how rarely, if at all, that politicians in the UK accuse each other of corruption without compelling evidence. Where suspicions of unethical or corrupt behaviour may arise, they are handled through established parliamentary systems and/or by the Police. It was the Police that investigated alleged infractions of Covid lockdown rules by Boris Johnson and some members of his Cabinet. The findings of the Police sowed the seeds of public distrust and marked the beginning of the end of Tory rule. This culture contrasts sharply with that of the US, and the Caribbean where politicians cavalierly accuse each other of corruption and/or steadfastly refuse to accept the results of elections.
Jamaica’s Shining Example
On this latter point, I happily and respectfully recall the political maturity shown by members of the People’s National Party (PNP) of Jamaica, which ensured the peaceful transfer of power, after the 25 February 2016 General Elections, in which the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) secured the narrowest of victories, winning 32 of 63 seats. After recounts mandated by the Electoral Commission in a handful of constituencies settled the outcome, the PNP promptly accepted the election results and gracefully exited Government, sparing the country any political turmoil. Here, Jamaica held up a light to US politicians.
Speed of Transition
I am also impressed with the speed with which the transition from one Government to another takes place in the UK. By the time a new PM receives the King’s blessings, which usually occurs within 24 hours after the election result is confirmed, he/she moves into official residence at 10 Downing Street, which is already cleared of all the possessions of his/her predecessor. Critically, a smooth transition in governance is also ensured by two essential features: (1) the civil service remains intact; and (2) by virtue of a Shadow Cabinet system, a new Cabinet of Ministers is sworn in, with great dispatch. This contrasts sharply with the US system, where a new Government does not assume office until 2 months after the elections, and where wholesale changes are often made in the upper and middle tiers of the public service. It may be argued that given the humongous size and complexity of the US Government, its transition system is justified. However, in certain Caribbean countries, size does not determine the speed of transition, as it can take up to a week for a Cabinet to be appointed. In some countries, deep changes are made to the civil service.
Conclusion
The UK’s political culture and system has rightly been heavily criticized over the years. Its pros, cons and idiosyncrasies have been accurately captured in the hugely popular, “Yes Minister” and “Yes Prime Minister” TV series. Many have cited the fact that the UK does not have a consolidated Constitution, and many have criticized the Constitutions it bequeathed to its former colonies in the Caribbean, as being culturally inappropriate. Bizarrely, such criticism has come from some political leaders who have made no effort to change their Constitutions, after many years of Independence.
I will continue to argue that despite their inadequacies, the fault is not in our Constitutions but is in the quality of the political culture and in the systems of governance in the Caribbean. With all its carbuncles, there are potent lessons to be learned from the UK system of governance.